State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Sundek India Ltd. vs Vijayalaxmi S. Sirsalewala on 30 April, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2008 Date of filing : 25/01/2008 @ MISC. APPL. NOS. 186 & 187 OF 2008 Date of order : 30/04/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 249 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOUTH MUMBAI M/s.Sundek India Ltd. Sundek House, Rasala Marg, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009. Appellant/org. O.P.No.2 V/s. Vijayalaxmi S. Sirsalewala 143, Monalisa Apartment, Bomanji Petit Road, Mumbai-400 036. Respondent/org. complainant Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Mr.I.S. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President This appeal filed by org. O.P. No.2 in consumer complaint No.249/2005 is directed against the order dated 27/02/2007 passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum.
We heard Mr.I.S. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant/org. O.P.No.2.
There is delay of 1 day in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly delay is condoned.
We examined the correctness of the order under challenge.
The District Consumer Forum granted following reliefs to the org. complainant:-
O R D E R
(i) Complaint is partly allowed.
(ii) The Opposite Party Nos.1&2 are directed to pay to the Conmplainant jointly and severally Rs.6,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization towards supply of 8 pieces of defective product to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,000/-
towards mental agony to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(iv) The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The complainant who is housewife engaged services of O.P.No.1/Omprakash J. Jangid, who is a Furniture and Civil Contractor. The complainant purchased 8 lamination sheets from O.P.No.1, which are manufactured by O.P.No.2. The complainant made a serious grievance about quality of lamination sheets. Therefore, the consumer complaint is filed. The complainant as well as O.P.No.2 produced pieces of lamination sheets before the Forum below. The Forum below observed the pieces of lamination sheets produced by the complainant as well as O.P.No.2 and found by naked eyes that the pieces of lamination sheets brought by the complainant were defective.
Mr.Omprakash Jangid in his affidavit stated that lamination sheets were fading. The labours engaged by Mr.Jangid brought this fact to the notice of the complainant. Mr.Jangid in his affidavit made a statement that he is in business of furniture contract for last 10 years and it was first time in his life to find such defective lamination sheets. Mr.Rajesh Tarkar has filed his affidavit on behalf of O.P.No.2. He has stated in his affidavit that the complainant and her contractor used un-recommended solution for the purpose of cleaning the lamination sheets and therefore, the colur became fade. The Learned Advocate Mr.Pawar brought to our notice the Product Data. Care and Maintenance column reads as under :-
Wipe clean with ordinary soap or household ammoniated liquid detergent. For stubborn stains use diluted organic solvent or stain remover. International Laminates are for interior use only. Director exposure to sunlight/heat must be avoided. Abrasive cleaners and wire brushes are not recommended.
There is nothing on record to show that the pieces of lamination sheets, which were brought by the complainant before the Forum below had abrasive marks. The witness Ragesh Tarkar has made allegations in the affidavit on the basis of surmises. He has no personal knowledge about the use of un-recommended solvent used by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that un-recommended chemical solvent was used for cleaning the lamination sheets. The Forum below preferred the evidence of complainant and passed the impugned order. We are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. No interference is called. In the result, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Misc. Appl. No.186/2008 for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.
2.
Appeal stands dismissed summarily.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Misc. Appl. No.187/2008, which is for stay stands disposed of.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) (B.B. Vagyani) Member Judicial Member President dd.